One of NJ's richest towns continues to fight a directive to build affordable housing

One of New Jersey’s wealthiest towns is doubling down on its efforts to scrap an affordable housing development in its downtown after years of ongoing litigation .

Millburn Township officials are asking a judge to pause a court-issued mandate that they begin putting shovels in the ground for the project. On Wednesday night, the tony locale's attorneys filed a motion in Essex County Superior Court in hopes of appealing a judge’s ruling that ordered the township to move forward with an original agreement to build a 75-unit affordable housing development near shops, restaurants and an NJ Transit stop.

The fight in a town where the average home price exceeds $1 million is part of broader statewide debates over spurring affordable housing in New Jersey. Roughly 200,000 affordable rental units for low- and middle-income residents are needed to meet demand, according to state housing officials.

Towns like Millburn, which has built almost no affordable housing in the last 40 years, could soon be asked to contribute hundreds of affordable units starting in 2025. The state will begin to hand out new requirements this fall to its municipalities, mandating how many affordable housing units each must develop over the next decade.

In the motion filed on Wednesday evening, the township’s attorneys argued that if Millburn was forced to go forward with the project, the neighborhood would “suffer irreparable harm” over the requirement to move its Department of Public Works facilities where the development is slated to be built. Echoing previous arguments, Millburn’s lawyers said they have yet to find a “suitable” new location for the 75-unit development.

Millburn Township attorney Jarrid Kantor and Mayor Annette Romano did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

Essex County Superior Judge Cynthia Santomauro late last month gave Millburn 30 days to sign off on the agreement that the town approved in 2021 as part of its affordable housing plan with developer RPM. The order came after years of litigation, during which Millburn violated multiple court orders to proceed with the project, and about six months after the township committee voted to rescind the RPM deal.

In her ruling, Santomauro warned the township that if it failed to follow her directive, it could risk further court sanctions, including possible fines.

In their motion, Millburn’s attorneys wrote that Santomauro’s refusal to recuse herself in the case “irreversibly tainted” the matter. Earlier this year, the township formally asked the judge to recuse herself after she threatened to sanction Millburn following the township committee's vote to renege on the project. Santomauro denied that motion and stated at an April hearing that nothing in case law said that her expressing her “displeasure” with the township required her recusal.

Santomauro did not immediately respond to requests for comment on the township’s motion. Attorneys for RPM could not be immediately reached.

The ongoing legal saga comes on the heels of state lawmakers overhauling New Jersey’s affordable housing process in hopes of transforming a statewide affordable housing push marked by local pushback and scores of lawsuits. The yearslong Millburn conflict seems to belie legislators' optimism that some towns' efforts resisting affordable housing obligations will diminish in the future.

Josh Bauers, an attorney for Fair Share Housing Center, a nonprofit organization that is part of the lawsuit over the Millburn Main Street project, said the center was “disappointed in the path the town has chosen.”

“I think we were very hopeful that the town was finally ready to step up to the plate and abide by the agreement they signed, at this point, three years ago, and I think they're really still relying on pretty thin arguments,” he said.

Bauers said his organization will oppose the request for a stay and continue to do “everything legally permissible” to force the town to move forward with the agreement with RPM.

Millburn’s attorneys told the court that if the developer or housing advocates involved in the lawsuit oppose their plea to pause the plan from moving forward pending an appeal, the township would request that oral arguments be scheduled.